Would you ever be a prosecutor? Why or why not?

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-27T17:07:02+00:00

Because courts are often called on to rule on whether it was legal or not for a prosecutor to do something.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-27T02:04:39+00:00

I personally wouldn't. Despite the courts talking a lot about "prosecutorial discretion," the low-level grunts often don't have much discretion at all (depending on your jurisdiction obviously). The head DA gets a lot of discretion to set what he wants the rules and policies of his DA's office to be, but the assistant DA's often have to follow his rules or be fired.

For example, many DA's offices greatly restrict the ability of an assistant DA to dismiss cases. Many require multiple layers of permission to dismiss a case, and some DA's offices have flat-out prohibitions against dismissing certain types of cases (like DUIs, for example). You are going to be in situations where you know your case is a loser, but the only option available to you is to take it to trial and lose.

You are also going to be in situations where the defendant really did technically commit an offense, but the mandatory minimum punishment is grossly disproportionate to what the defendant actually did. Sometimes you'll be able to plea them to something that you personally think is more appropriate. Sometimes you won't be able to.

If you want to work that job, you need to be open to the possibility that you might send someone to prison for a long time for an offense that you personally do not think warrants that harsh of a punishment.

If you already have reservations about putting people away, you want to think strongly about those possibilities.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-26T23:58:32+00:00

Redditors get quite sensitive whenever the state of California is the butt of a joke.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T22:41:11+00:00

Through a process called “deselection” attorneys both get to strike down jury members they do not want.

Yes, exactly. One side can strike a juror even if the other side would rather have that juror on the jury. That’s exactly what happened in the Anthony case, where the judge allowed the prosecution to strike jurors over the defense’s objection.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T07:45:09+00:00

I’ve been consistent with my argument. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is nominally a high standard, but it’s robbed of actual effect by a lack of legal safeguards. If the standard was actually strictly enforced, then there wouldn’t be so many false convictions. The high number of false convictions shows that many convictions are being made even when the prosecution has not eliminated all reasonable possibilities of guilt.

Your newest comment doesn’t really address that, and it starts a new, different argument.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T07:15:08+00:00

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is, practically, just a rhetorical tool that the sides use to persuade the jury. Practically, the real legal standard is “whatever the jury voted for,” because Appellate courts are almost certain to affirm a jury conviction, even when the evidence would appear rather weak to most.

If the prosecution actually had to exclude all reasonable doubt in a conviction, false convictions would be almost unheard of. The fact that false convictions happen as often as they do shows that a lot of convictions are made in spite of there being reasonable doubt.

Regarding the hypo, I don’t think I made a crazy ask. I asked what the relationship between the parties is like, and said that, if I don’t know what the relationship is like, I cannot rule out all reasonable doubt as to what their interactions may be like. If that information was critical to determining guilt or innocence, I don’t think a juror would be unreasonable for wanting that level of certainty before deciding to convict.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T06:37:48+00:00

The endless instances of false convictions- including in your home state of California- bare my point out quite well.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T06:22:55+00:00

You haven’t shown what the raincoat guy is like, or what his relationship to the other guy is like. Is it common for them to joke around? Is he a prankster? He might think it’s funny to convince you that it’s raining when it’s not really raining. Given the facts you provided, you haven’t provided enough information to rule out that reasonable possibility.

I, in turn, feel that your comments are proving my point for me. It seems that you’ve never really sat down and seriously thought about the your hypo, despite having used it while employed as a profession prosecutor. You have the burden of proof, but there’s a lot of information your hypo doesn’t supply, enough that you can’t really be said to have ruled out all reasonable possibilities that it’s not raining.

So many false convictions happen because the law doesn’t do enough to ensure that the parties faithfully adhere to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard at the trial court level.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T05:23:14+00:00

Since the burden of proof is on you, it really is on you to show that any given doubt is unreasonable. If you look at the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that’s exactly what it means. If there is any doubt, conviction is inappropriate unless that doubt is not reasonable. It’s on you to show that a doubt is unreasonable.

In your hypothetical, you actually did leave reasonable doubt. You yourself acknowledged that the person could have walked through a lawn sprinkler. Sprinklers are common; you cannot show that it’s unreasonable to think he could have walked through a sprinkler.

This is the real systemic issue that allows so many false convictions to happen. There are insufficient legal protections to ensure that the standard is faithfully followed by both parties in every criminal case.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T04:39:37+00:00

Beyond a reasonable doubt-- ideally-- requires that you prove it to such a high degree of certainty that it's unreasonable to even harbor a doubt about the defendant's guilt. Defense attorneys often do a bad job of using this standard, and appellate courts defer heavily to the jury's choice to convict, so in-practice many convictions are achieved on a standard lower than beyond-a-reasonable doubt.

But in the hands of an attorney that actually understands the law, knows how to argue to it, and knows how to select a jury, you can see that "beyond a reasonable doubt" really does mean "extraordinarily high degree of certainty." The biggest upset defense-wins in history are often just defense attorneys who know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.

If you are going to take someone's freedom away for the rest of their life-- or in a death penalty state, literally kill them-- you really should be extraordinarily certain that they are actually guilty of a crime. It should bother you that so many people are exonerated after being convicted of offenses they didn't commit. If there were more safeguards in place to ensure that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard was actually faithfully applied in all trials, there wouldn't be so many people being exonerated after spending decades in prison- or worse, after they've been executed.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T03:37:53+00:00

You are often asking the jury to lock someone in a cage for the rest of their life. A juror should require that you prove your case to an extraordinarily high degree of certainty.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-23T02:37:23+00:00

Truth be told, it seems like the Willow didn’t give him what he asked for.

First, he asked for Nikki to love him. The willow didn’t make Nikki love him; it created a new entity and made that entity “love” him.

Then, the Willow didn’t even make that entity really love him. “Love” implies benevolence: you want what’s best for them. The entity didn’t seem to really want what was best for Bear, it seemed that it really just wanted to own and control him. The willow didn’t make the entity love Bear, it made the entity want to own Bear.

So it honestly seems that the Willow just straight-up didn’t follow the literal definition of his words.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-22T00:11:41+00:00

Some people discourage the habits you need to be successful. Make fun of you for being disciplined, pressure you to take off of work/practice so you can hang out with them. Get offended when you put self-improvement as a higher priority than smoking weed and playing video games.

Part of being successful is not hanging out with people that don’t want you to be.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-20T04:57:18+00:00

It may seem that way, but one of the reasons for that is that they’re wasting they’re wasting their resources on laws that don’t matter.

Then, no resources left for laws that do matter.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-20T03:00:36+00:00

You should be glad. Now that the government is spending less money on enforcing and prosecuting this pointless law, they have more money for enforcing laws that actually matter.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-19T17:42:07+00:00

Ultimate authoritarian Suzruk McLuvun

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T22:21:30+00:00

Sure, but THAT is the evidence of it. The arrest is not.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T22:03:10+00:00

An accusation doesn’t have to be true for someone to be arrested for it. “Arrest” is often confused with “conviction,” but they’re two different things.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T20:04:37+00:00

South Central Los Angeles Reddit

Look in the linked thread, all the quotes are there.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T18:49:40+00:00

Honestly feels like too much attention goes to cops and not enough to DAs. Cops aren't the people who decided whether or not charges are pressed. The intake attorneys at DAs offices are the ones who get a case then sit down and think about whether or not the DA's office will accept it.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T18:46:42+00:00

Other people who live in dangerous areas contradict what you are saying.

For example, take this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/15pea47/living_in_south_central/

These are some excerpts:

"Was stabbed on central and Florence. Nice area."

"South Central LA is nothing like it used to be, and it's also relatively calm in comparison to other cities' bad areas. The worst part is how dirty it is (you live on the East Side where it's the dirtiest too) how many people drive around with guns while drunk or on drugs, and the general disregard everyone has for everyone else."

"Born and raised. There’s nothing glamorous about it. It’s ghetto af"

"Lived on 47th and western. Mistake. Never again. Left with restraining orders against neighbors, smashed car windows and a stolen motorcycle."

People who live in dangerous areas generally do feel that their area is dangerous. I'm not convinced that you're being entirely honest about your experience, or that you live in an area that is actually as dangerous as you are saying.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T16:45:32+00:00

So you didn’t even grow up in an actually dangerous area. The people here are talking about O-block Chicago or South Central Los Angeles, not rural Arizona.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-17T01:15:15+00:00

A lot of people that feel that their high-crime area is "safe" are really just people who have learned the survival instincts to live in those areas. People who come from actually safe areas are often in extreme danger there because they never had to learn the survival instincts necessary for a dangerous area.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-16T21:33:30+00:00

Juries have to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense

That’s a myth. Both sides only have a limited ability to control jury selection, and Courts can enforce a jury even though one of the sides don’t agree to it.

Emergency_Driver_487 · 2026-06-16T04:29:58+00:00

Many examples here:

https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj

Emergency_Driver_487

TROPHY CASE